In Re K.P. / in Re Adoption of K.P., 2026 VT 4

Mother and father divorced in 2019, mother was awarded sole rights and responsibilities for K.P., and father was granted limited visitation. 1
Mother and her new husband S.A. later sought to adopt K.P., and mother filed to terminate father’s parental rights in the probate proceeding. 2
At petitioners’ request, the adoption and termination case was transferred to and consolidated with the existing family case, and the probate case was dismissed. 3
After an evidentiary hearing, the family division found father had not exercised parental responsibility for six months, but had good cause because mother and S.A. interfered and father faced housing, transportation, seizure, and mental-health problems. 4
The family division denied termination and adoption, concluded termination was not in K.P.’s best interests, and ordered gradual reintroduction of father’s contact. 5
Petitioners appealed both the family division order and the civil division’s dismissal of their appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the civil division have appellate jurisdiction? 7	Petitioners said § 2553 allowed de novo civil-division review because the case originated in probate.	The consolidated case ended in a family-order, so only a probate order was appealable under § 2555.	No; the civil division properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 8
Did father have good cause for not exercising parental responsibility? 9	Petitioners argued father’s excuses ended once his seizures stabilized and he still did nothing.	Father argued mother and S.A. blocked contact, and his instability and poverty hindered him.	Yes; the finding of good cause was supported by the record. 10
Could the court terminate father’s rights under § 3-504(b)? 11	Petitioners argued father failed to promptly resume parenting and that best interests favored termination.	Father argued petitioners failed to prove any statutory ground permitting termination.	No; because no § 3-504(b) ground was proven, termination was unavailable. 12

Ketchum v. Town of Dorset, 190 Vt. 507, 22 A.3d 500 (Vt. 2011) (statutory interpretation turns on legislative intent and plain language 13)
In re Appeal of Carroll, 181 Vt. 383, 925 A.2d 990 (Vt. 2007) (courts consider the whole statute when text is ambiguous 14)
Whitton v. Scott, 120 Vt. 452, 144 A.2d 706 (Vt. 1958) (describes historical de novo appeal from probate adoption decrees 15)
In re K.M.M., 189 Vt. 372, 22 A.3d 423 (Vt. 2011) (parental-preference doctrine and termination standard under § 3-504 16)
In re J.C., 169 Vt. 139, 730 A.2d 588 (Vt. 1999) (good-cause inquiry under § 3-504 is fact-specific and requires all relevant factors 17)
In re T.R., 163 Vt. 596, 653 A.2d 777 (Vt. 1994) (clear-error review upholds findings supported by credible evidence 18)
Stamato v. Quazzo, 139 Vt. 155, 423 A.2d 1201 (Vt. 1980) (trial court resolves credibility and evidentiary weight 19)
Payrits v. Payrits, 171 Vt. 50, 757 A.2d 469 (Vt. 2000) (trial court uniquely assesses witness credibility and demeanor 20)
Knutsen v. Cegalis, 191 Vt. 546, 35 A.3d 1059 (Vt. 2011) (different factual inference alone does not show abuse of discretion 21)
In re Adoption of Holcomb, 481 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio 1985) (custodial-parent interference can justify noncustodial parent’s noncontact 22)
In re Adoption of C.A.P., 869 N.E.2d 214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (courts consider transportation, poverty, and discouragement of visitation in abandonment analysis 23)